Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,800 Year: 4,057/9,624 Month: 928/974 Week: 255/286 Day: 16/46 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Islam need a Reformation?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 76 of 300 (227221)
07-29-2005 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by jar
07-28-2005 5:16 PM


Back to the topic please?
the subject was actually "Does Islam need a Reformation".
You were specifically addressing me and supposedly answering the point I was making, which was confined to the fact that Mohammed himself resorted to conversion by violence.
But relating to conversion, the Christian answer was very simple throughout European history, "Convert or you will be killed and if you convert the wrong way you'll be killed and we may decide to kill you anyway."
For an admin you sure violate a lot of forum rules. This is nothing but assertion. It requires evidence, VERY GOOD evidence, especially since I have given the evidence of Europe's conversion by missionaries. Before 1000 AD the only conversion by force in Europe was under Charlemagne. It was very wrong, and it is not supported by the New Testament, and Christians lament it. The rest of Europe was slowly converted by missionaries over the previous thousand years and I've given a link supporting this.
Again, this is off topic in any case, a red herring. The topic is, as you yourself just reminded me, "Does Islam Need a Reformation?" Christianity had one, remember?
Throughout history Christianity has been a religion of war and oppression. As Christians we need to acknowledge that. None of the Muslim Conquests even came close to what has been done under Christianity.
Wild off-topic assertion.
Islam does not need a Reformation. To even ask the question is pretty silly. There are no Imperial Islamic States. There are a few Islamic terrorists, but then there are many Christian terrorists as well.
You've been answered many times and you continue with the wild assertions. I wasn't addressing the question of Reformation as such, and I'm not sure I agree with Steve's way of formulating the problem or the solution. I agree, however, that what drives the Islamic terrorists is in their holy books, although many other Muslims may have a different interpretation of those passages. As long as those passages are there and there is historical precedent for the terrorists' interpretation of them, and there is, it is foolish to ignore this. I'm glad there are Muslims themselves who are addressing the problem. I don't know what the solution is, but denying the problem, which is all that is going on here in answer to Steve, besides killing the messenger, is NOT the solution.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-29-2005 12:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 07-28-2005 5:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 07-29-2005 10:18 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 77 of 300 (227227)
07-29-2005 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by CanadianSteve
07-29-2005 12:26 AM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
However, I also appreciate jazzn's arguments, and have seen them eloquently presented by some muslims scholars i respect, such as Akyol - whom i referenced. Thus, while I see a stronger argument for the War Verses being a call to war, I also recognize the other argument. And, most importantly, I see that both sides are legitimate, which i see in turn as the theological civil war islam has experienced through most of its history. Which is the principle reason why a debate about the need of a reformation is reasonable. In fact, I refrenced an article of one very prominent Muslim author, Schwartz, where he wonders whether his previous rejection of the need for a reformation wasn't hasty.
Certainly there are both interpretations in Islam, if that is all you are saying, and both are legitimate and well argued in the history of Islam, and it's important to affirm the peaceable side of Islam to those who interpret what you are saying as simply anti-Islam as such.
But the spiritual interpretations aren't sending out suicide bombers and blowing up buildings and killing innocent people, it's the traditional literal jihadic interpretations that are, and these interpretations are every bit as legitimate and have been historically validated time after time. The apparently urgent desire on the part of some participants here is to sweep this under the rug and kill the messenger, accusing you -- and me -- of "hate" and finding any number of red herrings and other distractions and wild accusations to derail the topic. But rightly the discussion is about facts, and about the need for more Muslims themselves to address this problem seriously as the serious problem it is within their camp.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-29-2005 12:26 AM CanadianSteve has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 78 of 300 (227228)
07-29-2005 12:58 AM


This odd imbalance
Isn't it remarkable that accusing Christianity of all kinds of terrible things is done frequently and without any attempt at validation, while a carefully thought out cool-headed discussion of the real dangers that are built into Islam, with many references, is just about hounded off the board here? Christians here take insults every day but one can't even suggest that there's a problem with Islam, a problem which has immediate implications for human well being and survival, without causing an uproar of protest. Anybody willing to face this peculiar inequity?
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-29-2005 12:58 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2005 7:48 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 79 of 300 (227245)
07-29-2005 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jazzns
07-28-2005 9:19 AM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
Once again all of you experts on the term 'jihad' are also critics of Islam (yes including the Moslem woman who write that book, you will find many real Christians on this board criticial of Christianity as well).
Have you ever found a real definition of 'jihad' from an Arabic scholar? A Moslem scholar? Someone who is actually part of the culture that uses that term?
Jazz, the meaning of the term as C Steve has been discussing it IS defined by Muslims, though there are other Muslim schools of interpretation. Steve has been giving plenty of references to this. Certainly it is used in many senses as you say, but you are studiously ignoring the ONE sense in which it is legitimately used that is under discussion here. You simply want to ignore the fact that there are Muslim schools that teach the violent meaning of it.
I don't understand why this is so upsetting to you and why you are so angry at people who try to discuss it.
The following is a quote from an ex-Muslim at an ex-Muslim site where many quotes from Muslims and ex-Muslims about the nature of Islam can be found. They had a quote by the Ayatollah Khomeini there at one point saying to his Muslim followers that those who dodge the obvious meaning of the Koranic verses about killing the infidel are untrue to Allah, but there's no search feature at the site and I can't find it now.
Those of us, who know Islam, know that the understanding of the terrorists of Islam is correct. They are doing nothing that their prophet did not do and did not encourage his followers to do. Murder, rape, assassination, beheading, massacre and sacrilege of the dead "to delight the hearts of the believers" were all practiced by Muhammad, were taught by him and were observed by Muslims throughout their history.
If truth has ever mattered, it matters most now! This is the time that we have to call a spade a spade. This is the time that we have to find the root of the problem and eradicate it. The root of Islamic terrorism is Islam. The proof of that is the Quran.
WordPress › Error
{EDIT: I found the page on the Ayatollah Khomeini's exhortation:
Why do you Mullahs only go after the ordinances of prayer and fasting?
Why do you only read the Quranic verses of mercy and do not read the verses of killing?
Quran says; kill, imprison!
Why are you only clinging to the part that talks about mercy?
Mercy is against God.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Iran/KhomeiniSpeech.htm
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-29-2005 07:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jazzns, posted 07-28-2005 9:19 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by CK, posted 07-29-2005 7:05 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 84 by Jazzns, posted 07-29-2005 10:14 AM Faith has replied
 Message 92 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-29-2005 3:46 PM Faith has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4154 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 80 of 300 (227246)
07-29-2005 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
07-29-2005 6:49 AM


The whole vagina and nothing but the vagina
quote:
This women thinks she is 100% vagina.
What is the subliminal message this woman is sending? The subliminal message is that every square inch of my body is private part, every square inch of it can make you horny. Therefore my entire body is an 'awrat, (lit. pudendum, genital) and I am a sex object from head to toe. People cover their private parts. This woman thinks her entire body is private part. Does this in anyway arouse respect? Only one who thinks with her genital may think so.
hahahahh - that site is great.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 29-Jul-2005 07:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 6:49 AM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1493 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 81 of 300 (227258)
07-29-2005 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
07-29-2005 12:58 AM


A Bunch of Questions
Christians here take insults every day but one can't even suggest that there's a problem with Islam, a problem which has immediate implications for human well being and survival, without causing an uproar of protest.
What would it mean for a religion to "have a problem", exactly? What would be the implications of such a thing? If it's appropriate to examine Islam for the things that you don't like, isn't it appropriate to apply the same scrutiny to other religions?
Given the vast variance in differing interpretations among believers of any religion, what's the legitimate basis in asserting that Muslim terrorists are "true" to their religion but Christian terrorists are not "true" to theirs? As Christians, if what they were doing wasn't true to their scriptures wouldn't they stop doing it?
Unlike others I have no problem indicting Islam for a host of sins; the exact same sins that I indict Christianity and all religions for. Religion in general is indictable. But to assert that one religion is better or worse than another is simply ego-stroking religious prickwaving. It's a pissing contest and anybody who takes part in it should be pretty embarrased. If people have a right to believe the nonsense of Christianity then they have the same right to believe the nonsense of Islam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 12:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by CK, posted 07-29-2005 7:53 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 8:21 AM crashfrog has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4154 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 82 of 300 (227261)
07-29-2005 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by crashfrog
07-29-2005 7:48 AM


Re: A Bunch of Questions
oh yeah - I'm an equal-ops sort of guy. I believe that both religions talk awful nonsense (Some of the twisting of science to fit Islam is just as funny as the creationist rubbish we get here).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2005 7:48 AM crashfrog has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 83 of 300 (227272)
07-29-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by crashfrog
07-29-2005 7:48 AM


Synopsis in answer to Questions
I believe it would become clear to you if you would just follow the discussion. Your questions are more than answered in the discussion so far. But here is a synopsis:
It starts with the recognition that Islam contains specific written directives understood to be from God to conquer others for Allah by violence if necessary, and the suggestion that this is the reason for terrorism. That is, terrorism is not just a matter of a few fanatics, it is a matter of true followers of Islam fulfilling what the religion actually teaches.
No other religion does that. No other religion explicitly in its written texts or even implicitly for that matter threatens to do harm to people either inside or outside its own group of followers. The evidence has been given in many places on this thread by all kinds of scholars Muslim and nonMuslim.
(Just to head off one red herring: What God commanded the Israelites to do was only for the Israelites at that time. None of it was commanded of anyone outside that context, and is certainly not now commanded of readers of the Bible. But believers of the Koran are directly commanded to attack "infidels." Oh OK, another red herring that has already been answered many times here: any violence done in the name of Christ is a violation of the spirit of Christ and of what is written in the New Testament, far from anything you will find commanded in it).
What is being disputed (besides Steve's right to argue the topic at all) is whether or not those Koranic directives are to be understood literally as written or in some other way that eliminates the obvious stated threat to nonMuslims. Jazzns and Andya Primanda claim it should not be understood to be a command to violence against others.
It has been acknowledged that that is one legitimate way to read the passages in question, that does have the support of some Muslim scholars and leaders.
Unfortunately so does the literal way of reading those passages have the support of some Muslim scholars and leaders, with just as much legitimacy, and certainly with a great deal of historical precedent. The peaceful readings are far from exclusive among Muslim scholars though we are being told we must consider them so.
As long as those passages are there, they will always LEGITIMATELY inspire some followers to terrorism.
There are some Muslims who are willing to face this fact honestly and try to solve the problem. There are other Muslims and Arabs who take offense at the very raising of the topic and so interfere with attempts to find a solution to the problem.
Steve raised the idea some scholars have proposed, that Islam needs a Reformation along the lines of the Christian Reformation. I don't see the parallel myself, and in fact he is saying he's not supporting the idea himself either, merely raising it to demonstrate the need for the problem to be addressed somehow or other. If most Muslims are indeed peaceful and want to promote peace, then they need to address this problem within their circle.
I hope this answers your questions sufficiently. If not, please read through the thread and the many links provided more carefully.
Edit: typo correction
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-29-2005 08:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2005 7:48 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2005 4:16 PM Faith has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3938 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 84 of 300 (227292)
07-29-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
07-29-2005 6:49 AM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
I have never contended that there are some if not many extremists who falsely interpret the Koran and choose a path of active violence over peace. I have never defended the actions of Mohammed or the history of military actions of the Arab nations.
I do however contend the notion that this is somehow a majority view among Moslems and that somehow the moderates are not following the "true" message of the Koran. To even suggest that the only way to fix the problem is to edit the Koran is first of all impossible and second of all absurd. The problem is not the Koran it is the culture and the selective reading of religious text just like many branches of extremist Christianity do.
To come here and push this idea that Islam is inherently violent by definition and to support that assertion with references such as frontpagemag and jihadwatch is so shallow it only seems that someone with a agenda of hatred could even concieve of it.
My issue is not with saying that there is a problem in the middle east. There is no denying that. Areas are a hotbed of aggression and terrorist activity. The problem though is not Islam any more than Christianity was the problem with the foul behavior of Puritans. Just because modern Christianity is a few centuries removed from that evil mindset does not mean that it didn't exist nor that it was Christianity's fault. People will always twist religion to fit their vile need for control, power, influence, and evil. People are the problem not religion as evidenced by the vast millions of Moslems and Christians who practice their faith peacefully in contrast to their extremists counterparts.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 6:49 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 11:51 AM Jazzns has replied
 Message 93 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-29-2005 3:59 PM Jazzns has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 421 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 85 of 300 (227293)
07-29-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
07-29-2005 12:33 AM


Onward Christian Soldiers
Did Christian Rome conquer most of northern Europe?
This message has been edited by jar, 07-29-2005 09:19 AM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 12:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 11:27 AM jar has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 86 of 300 (227316)
07-29-2005 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by jar
07-29-2005 10:18 AM


Onward Christian Red Herring
Not Christian Rome. Pre-Christian Rome had pretty much conquered Europe already although the Goths had resisted their efforts until Constantine. Constantine had one war with the Goths as far as Europe goes, which he won but I haven't read up on the details. He seems to have spent his time more involved in Byzantium and Persia than Europe. A hundred years later Rome fell to the Visigoths and the Middle Ages began, during which the Roman Empire was defunct and didn't conquer anything in Europe or anywhere thereafter.
As for the conversion of the Goths to Christianity, about which you didn't ask but is of course of interest, apparently they brought this about largely on their own.
The first wholesale conversions of the Germanic or Teutonic race to the Christian religion took place among the Goths in the time when Arianism was at the height of power in the East Roman empire. The chief agents were clerical and other captives of war whom the Goths in their raids carried with them from the provinces of the Roman empire and whom they learned to admire and love for their virtue and supposed miraculous power. Constantine the Great entered into friendly relations with them, and is reported by Eusebius and Socrates to have subjected them to the cross of Christ. It is certain that some ecclesiastical organization was effected at that time. Theophilus, a bishop of the Goths, is mentioned among the fathers of the Council of Nicaea, 325.
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-29-2005 11:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 07-29-2005 10:18 AM jar has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 87 of 300 (227327)
07-29-2005 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Jazzns
07-29-2005 10:14 AM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
I have never contended that there are some if not many extremists who falsely interpret the Koran and choose a path of active violence over peace. I have never defended the actions of Mohammed or the history of military actions of the Arab nations.
The contention here is that the violent jihadist interpretation of the Koran is not false but legitimate, and this has been argued with many references.
I do however contend the notion that this is somehow a majority view among Moslems and that somehow the moderates are not following the "true" message of the Koran.
Nobody has said it's a majority reading, only that it is a legitimate reading by reputable Muslim teachers, and that it has quite a bit of historical precedent.
Also nobody has said that the moderates are not following the true message of the Koran. You don't seem to be reading carefully.
None of these things has been said here. What has been said is that there are TWO legitimate readings, due to the fact that BOTH a peaceful and violent form of conversion, both peaceful and violent attitudes toward unbelievers, are promoted in the Koran. BOTH are written in the Koran and therefore both are legitimate.
To even suggest that the only way to fix the problem is to edit the Koran is first of all impossible and second of all absurd.
I haven't suggested this. I don't think it is possible either.
The problem is not the Koran ...
Here we disagree. The whole point of this thread is that the problem IS the Koran. The passages are there. They have been referenced and quoted. There are historical validations of their legitimacy in Muslim history. There are Muslim leaders who consider them given by God in their literal form.
...it is the culture and the selective reading of religious text just like many branches of extremist Christianity do.
This is your claim and it has been recognized as one legitimate view of the situation, most likely the majority view at the present time. Unfortunately it is not the only legitimate view as there are Muslims who defend the violent readings, and with good cause, as Mohammed himself set the precedent, and they have been read literally over the centuries to the distress of many nonMuslim residents under Muslim power. You cannot rightly dismiss this as a misreading or as fanaticism. There is too much evidence that that is not the case.
Again, there is nothing in the Bible to support aggression against anybody, and absolutely not for the purpose of conversion. Such ideas have never been held by any recognized faction of the church ever. The message and example of Christ are utterly opposed to such actions, and when Christians engage in them they are doing so in opposition to the written religion. This is not to say there haven't been violent periods in Christian history, but they had nothing to do with conversion, whatever else might be said about them.
To come here and push this idea that Islam is inherently violent by definition and to support that assertion with references such as frontpagemag and jihadwatch is so shallow it only seems that someone with a agenda of hatred could even concieve of it.
Again you seem unable to think about the actual facts of the situation as presented, but can only deal with it emotionally. This makes discussing it with you impossible.
Again, nobody has said "Islam is inherently violent by definition." I defy you to find that anywhere. The consistent topic here has been that Islam has TWO SEPARATE STRANDS OF THOUGHT, BOTH LEGITIMATE, ONE PEACEFUL, THE OTHER VIOLENT.
My issue is not with saying that there is a problem in the middle east. There is no denying that. Areas are a hotbed of aggression and terrorist activity. The problem though is not Islam any more than Christianity was the problem with the foul behavior of Puritans.
Again you refuse to address the problem and seek a distraction and to smear Christianity which has nothing in common with Islam. And we aren't talking just about the Middle East, we are talking about a threat to the West as well and in fact the world, as there are passages that make clear the entire world is eventually to be taken for Allah.
Just because modern Christianity is a few centuries removed from that evil mindset does not mean that it didn't exist nor that it was Christianity's fault. People will always twist religion to fit their vile need for control, power, influence, and evil. People are the problem not religion as evidenced by the vast millions of Moslems and Christians who practice their faith peacefully in contrast to their extremists counterparts.
Unfortunately you simply refuse to address the facts given on this thread and are simply resorting to the usual accusations and assertions that I thought were against EvC rules.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-29-2005 11:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Jazzns, posted 07-29-2005 10:14 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Jazzns, posted 07-29-2005 1:50 PM Faith has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6499 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 88 of 300 (227345)
07-29-2005 12:09 PM


With respect to Jihad
Percy wondered whether an intellectual conflict between myself and another poster wasn't based on a conflicting understanding of Jihad, adn suggested definition be considered. That was a good observation. The problem is that Jihad has meant several things over Islamic history. By direct implication, that means the War, or Sword, Verses, have been interpreted differently by different peoples over various times. A new and acclaimed book, Understanding Jihad, is an in depth look at this subject. The following is a review of it by a well-known scholar:
Understanding Jihad
by Daniel Pipes (July 9, 2005)
Summary: Mr. Cook dismisses as "bathetic and laughable" John Esposito's contention that jihad refers to "the effort to lead a good life." Throughout history and at present, Mr. Cook definitively establishes, the term primarily means "warfare with spiritual significance."
[http://www.CapMag.com]
In his just-released, absorbing, and excellent book, Understanding Jihad (University of California Press), David Cook of Rice University dismisses the low-grade debate that has raged since 9/11 over the nature of jihad - whether it is a form of offensive warfare or (more pleasantly) a type of moral self-improvement.
Mr. Cook dismisses as "bathetic and laughable" John Esposito's contention that jihad refers to "the effort to lead a good life." Throughout history and at present, Mr. Cook definitively establishes, the term primarily means "warfare with spiritual significance."
His achievement lies in tracing the evolution of jihad from Muhammad to Osama, following how the concept has changed through fourteen centuries. This summary does not do justice to Cook's extensive research, prolific examples, and thoughtful analysis, but even a thumbnail sketch suggests jihad's evolution.
The Koran invites Muslims to give their lives in exchange for assurances of paradise.
The Hadith (accounts of Muhammad's actions and personal statements) elaborate on the Koran, providing specific injunctions about treaties, pay, booty, prisoners, tactics, and much else. Muslim jurisprudents then wove these precepts into a body of law.
During his years in power, the prophet engaged in an average of nine military campaigns a year, or one every five to six weeks; thus did jihad help define Islam from its very dawn. Conquering and humiliating non-Muslims was a main feature of the prophet's jihad.
During the first several centuries of Islam, "the interpretation of jihad was unabashedly aggressive and expansive." After the conquests subsided, non-Muslims hardly threatened and Sufi notions of jihad as self-improvement developed in complement to the martial meaning.
The Crusades, the centuries-long European effort to control the Holy Land, gave jihad a new urgency and prompted what Cook calls the "classical" theory of jihad. Finding themselves on the defensive led to a hardening of Muslim attitudes.
The Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century subjugated much of the Muslim world, a catastrophe only partially mitigated by the Mongols' nominal conversion to Islam. Some thinkers, Ibn Taymiya (d. 1328) in particular, came to distinguish between true and false Muslims; and to give jihad new prominence by judging the validity of a person's faith according to his willingness to wage jihad.
Nineteenth century "purification jihads" took place in several regions against fellow Muslims. The most radical and consequential of these was the Wahhabis' jihad in Arabia. Drawing on Ibn Taymiya, they condemned most non-Wahhabi Muslims as infidels (kafirs) and waged jihad against them.
European imperialism inspired jihadi resistance efforts, notably in India, the Caucasus, Somalia, Sudan, Algeria, and Morocco, but all in the end failed. This disaster meant new thinking was needed.
Islamist new thinking began in Egypt and India in the 1920s but jihad acquired its contemporary quality of radical offensive warfare only with the Egyptian thinker Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966). Qutb developed Ibn Taymiya's distinction between true and false Muslims to deem non-Islamists to be non-Muslims and then declare jihad on them. The group that assassinated Anwar El-Sadat in 1981 then added the idea of jihad as the path to world domination.
The anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan led to the final step (so far) in this evolution. In Afghanistan, for the first time, jihadis assembled from around the world to fight on behalf of Islam. A Palestinian, Abdullah Azzam, became the theorist of global jihad in the 1980s, giving it an unheard-of central role, judging each Muslim exclusively by his contribution to jihad, and making jihad the salvation of Muslims and Islam. Out of this quickly came suicide terrorism and bin Laden.
Mr. Cook's erudite and timely study has many implications, including these:
* The current understanding of jihad is more radical than at any prior time in Islamic history.
* This "extremism" suggests that the Muslim world is going through a phase, one that must be endured and overcome, comparable to analogously horrid periods in Germany, Russia, and China.
* Jihad having evolved steadily until now, doubtless will continue to do so in the future.
* The excessive form of jihad currently practiced by Al-Qaeda and others could, Mr. Cook semi-predicts, lead to its "decisive rejection" by a majority of Muslims.
The great challenge for moderate Muslims (and their non-Muslim allies) is to make that rejection come about, and with due haste.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4303
Given the information above, it is clear, I believe, that my contention of a theological civil war in Islam over the War Verses and Jihad is valid, as is that we in the west have now been dragged into that war. We watch Islamists commit acts of terror against democracies from Israel to the US to Sopain to Britain, and against Democracit targets elsewhere, from Iraq to lebanon to Bali. And we hear other Muslims denounce these attacks, denounce terror, and support democracy, and support western efforts to end authoritarianism in the ME with democracy, rather than Islamism, as the alternative. Thus, the civil war, and our having gotten involved.

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3938 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 89 of 300 (227410)
07-29-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
07-29-2005 11:51 AM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
The contention here is that the violent jihadist interpretation of the Koran is not false but legitimate, and this has been argued with many references.
Yea it has been argued by reference. It always seems to boil down to references dosen't it. For some reason the BBC is an invalid and biased source but frontpagemag and jihadwatch are totally reliable and valid. When it comes to politics you can find references for just about any position no matter how hateful or ignorant.
Also nobody has said that the moderates are not following the true message of the Koran. You don't seem to be reading carefully.
CS's solution is to edit the Koran and the Hadith. What does that suggest if not that there is something wrong with the Koran and the way it is being used its followers. At what point are we going to hold people responsible for their actions rather than the religion.
None of these things has been said here. What has been said is that there are TWO legitimate readings, due to the fact that BOTH a peaceful and violent form of conversion, both peaceful and violent attitudes toward unbelievers, are promoted in the Koran. BOTH are written in the Koran and therefore both are legitimate.
You don't seem to recognize that this is exactly true for almost any religious text out there. That is why so many people are giving you examples of evil uses of Christian doctrine. You claim all day that it is not "true" Christianity yet turn around and call the same argument used in Islam as bunk. I simply do not understand how you cannot see the hypocricy.
Again, there is nothing in the Bible to support aggression against anybody, and absolutely not for the purpose of conversion. Such ideas have never been held by any recognized faction of the church ever. The message and example of Christ are utterly opposed to such actions, and when Christians engage in them they are doing so in opposition to the written religion. This is not to say there haven't been violent periods in Christian history, but they had nothing to do with conversion, whatever else might be said about them.
The Inquisition happened Faith regardless of what you say about how it was not "true" Christianity that was responsible for it. Witches have been burned, people have been killed, maimed, tortured, ostracized, banished, etc all in the name of Jesus Christ for century upon century. To say that these acts can be absolved by the 'no REAL Christian would do X' and not allow moderate Moslems to do the same is perfect hyprocricy.
Again you seem unable to think about the actual facts of the situation as presented, but can only deal with it emotionally. This makes discussing it with you impossible.
You may insert your perception of emotion wherever you like. Your subtle attention to this is a very good distraction tactic.
Again you refuse to address the problem and seek a distraction and to smear Christianity which has nothing in common with Islam.
Why would I seek to smear my own faith? That Christianity has influenced evil deeds perpetrated by its believers throught history is a fact. You deciding not to call them real Christians is arbitrary and hypocritical. These things occurred like them or not. I still feel comfortable in my faith recognizing them for what they are; the corruption that man made organized religion brings to faith in Christ. It is the people who are responsible for the attrocities. Those people used their faith as an excuse to commit despicable acts just like the extremist Moslems today.
Unfortunately you simply refuse to address the facts given on this thread and are simply resorting to the usual accusations and assertions that I thought
were against EvC rules.
I don't trust frontpagemag and jihadwatch any more than I would trust the fanatical Islamists. I am much happier getting my definition of Islam and words like 'jihad' from the average guys and gals who go down to the Mosque every friday. You know, people who actually speak the language and live the life. Forgive me if I do not bow to your 'facts' or your subtle reprehension toward me and my posts.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 11:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 2:32 PM Jazzns has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 90 of 300 (227432)
07-29-2005 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Jazzns
07-29-2005 1:50 PM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
The contention here is that the violent jihadist interpretation of the Koran is not false but legitimate, and this has been argued with many references.
Yea it has been argued by reference. It always seems to boil down to references dosen't it. For some reason the BBC is an invalid and biased source but frontpagemag and jihadwatch are totally reliable and valid. When it comes to politics you can find references for just about any position no matter how hateful or ignorant.
Sigh. I really do not get your hostility. There is nothing hateful about any of this except in your own mind and I'm at a loss to explain your attitude. Yes, the BBC appears to be biased to the left, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have factual material too. If there are errors in the material at any of the sources they ought to be correctable by facts from somewhere else. But the sources are pretty well documented. But you are just bitterly complaining and not engaging in discussing the actual facts in any case.
Also nobody has said that the moderates are not following the true message of the Koran. You don't seem to be reading carefully.
CS's solution is to edit the Koran and the Hadith. What does that suggest if not that there is something wrong with the Koran and the way it is being used its followers. At what point are we going to hold people responsible for their actions rather than the religion.
I can't comment on the idea of editing it. It seems impossible to me, but I have heard it proposed by some. But of course it suggests that there is something wrong with the Koran. That's the whole point. It is suggested that the Koran is the source of terrorism -- by many many scholars, Muslims, exMuslims etc. It's ALSO the source of perfectly peaceful forms of religion.
None of these things has been said here. What has been said is that there are TWO legitimate readings, due to the fact that BOTH a peaceful and violent form of conversion, both peaceful and violent attitudes toward unbelievers, are promoted in the Koran. BOTH are written in the Koran and therefore both are legitimate.
You don't seem to recognize that this is exactly true for almost any religious text out there.
Not only do I not "recognize" it I've strenuously argued that it is not true, but you just keep coming back and ignoring what has been said and refusing to think about it. There is NOTHING even remotely like the war verses of the Koran in the BIble, and not only in the Bible but in any other religion on earth.
That is why so many people are giving you examples of evil uses of Christian doctrine. You claim all day that it is not "true" Christianity yet turn around and call the same argument used in Islam as bunk.
YOu simply ignore all the reasoning involved. I haven't merely claimed it. You ought yourself to know there is nothing in the New Testament to justify violence. It is not the same argument at all. You just stick to your same old assertion no matter what anybody says about how you are wrong.
I simply do not understand how you cannot see the hypocricy.
There is none. The Koran and the Bible are apples and oranges.
Again, there is nothing in the Bible to support aggression against anybody, and absolutely not for the purpose of conversion. Such ideas have never been held by any recognized faction of the church ever. The message and example of Christ are utterly opposed to such actions, and when Christians engage in them they are doing so in opposition to the written religion. This is not to say there haven't been violent periods in Christian history, but they had nothing to do with conversion, whatever else might be said about them.
The Inquisition happened Faith regardless of what you say about how it was not "true" Christianity that was responsible for it.
THe Bible does not support the inquisition. THe Koran supports terrorism.
Witches have been burned, people have been killed, maimed, tortured, ostracized, banished, etc all in the name of Jesus Christ for century upon century.
None of this is remotely related to the argument about a religious document that specifically orders its followers to kill people. Specifically. Unambiguously. Directly. And taken in exactly that sense by some of its followers.
To say that these acts can be absolved by the 'no REAL Christian would do X' and not allow moderate Moslems to do the same is perfect hyprocricy.
I haven't said a word about "real Christians" or Moslems. I'm comparing the Bible with the Koran. The latter directly orders killing, the other can't even remotely be said to suggest such a thing.
Your hostility and emotionality are scary. I don't hate anybody, but this is a real problem the world is facing right now. It ought to be discussable but obviously it isn't. You're a nice guy. I don't get your total irrationality on this subject.
In any case I don't see any point in contributing to this thread further. I'll leave it to you and Canadian Steve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Jazzns, posted 07-29-2005 1:50 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Jazzns, posted 07-29-2005 4:23 PM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024